Can you use AI images and AI music commercially?

Usually yes, if your tool and your plan allow commercial use and the result doesn't imitate a protected work, logo or real person. Owning it is less certain. Copyright requires a human author, so a clip a model makes from a short prompt is probably not protected; your script, your selection and your edit can be.

That's why in the studio we work with commercially safe tools and licensed music, so a client can run their AI video production without worries ^[1]. This article is not legal advice; it describes the situation as of 27 September 2026.

Can you use it commercially? Look at your plan

"You own your output" appears in many terms, but it mainly means that the tool itself claims nothing. For an advertiser, what counts is what your plan allows:

The plan counts, not the tool: keep proof of your plan on the day you generated something. Which tool technically suits which shot best is covered in Veo, Kling or Runway: which AI video tool for ads?

Where is the risk for advertisers?

The biggest risk is output that resembles something that already exists. A model can reproduce a logo, character or recognisable work, even unprompted, and that risk lies with you: tools don't guarantee unique output, and with Midjourney and Runway, among others, you indemnify them ^[3][4].

The British case of Getty Images against Stability AI shows how that plays out. Getty lost its copyright claim in November 2025 (that part is under appeal ^[8]), but partly won on trade mark law: Getty watermarks in output from older models were trade mark infringement by Stability ^[9]. Anyone who puts such an image in an ad is using that trade mark themselves.

Two other boundaries:

• Imitating a style. The Raad voor Reclame, the Belgian advertising council, asks advertisers not to imitate a distinctive artistic style or brand aesthetic without permission, and to check AI output for infringement, keeping the prompts on record ^[10].
• Real people. Belgian portrait rights prohibit showing a portrait without the consent of the person in it ^[11], and the Belgian Advertising Code requires prior consent before you imitate the likeness or voice of a recognisable person with AI ^[12]. How that works with avatars is covered in AI UGC and AI avatars in ads.

AI music and AI voices: read the exceptions

Here too, the plan decides, with exceptions of its own:

Don't imitate well-known songs. Six recognisably reproduced songs were central to GEMA's case against Suno, which the German court decided largely in GEMA's favour in July 2026; the judgment is not final ^[19]. And according to Meta's specifications, Instagram Reels ads may not contain "licensed music"; Meta recommends original audio or its own sound collection ^[20].

Who owns the result?

Copyright protects works by humans. According to the Court of Justice of the EU, a work is protected if it is the author's own intellectual creation that reflects their personality ^[21][22]. The Belgian Code of Economic Law names the natural person who created the work as the author (Art. XI.170) ^[11].

Ghent researcher Paulien Wymeersch concludes that AI output as such falls outside copyright, because the creative choices of user and developer are not sufficiently reflected in the result ^[23]. The U.S. Copyright Office takes the same view, although a creative selection or arrangement can be protected ^[24]. The Court of Justice has not yet ruled on AI output.

For a video ad, that roughly means: your script and voice-over text are probably protected, as are your own product photos and logo. A single clip from a short prompt probably isn't; your edit possibly is. So if a competitor copies a single AI clip from your ad, you'll find it harder to take action on copyright grounds; your brand, script and edit remain yours.

What do you put in the contract?

Belgian copyright law is strict about contracts: they must be proven in writing and are interpreted restrictively (Art. XI.167, §1) ^[11]. For commissioned work in advertising, the rights can pass to the client, but only if the transfer says so explicitly (Art. XI.167, §3) ^[11]. Your agency must also hold the rights of all employees and freelancers who worked on your ad.

• Tools and plans, with a commercial licence for each and proof of it on the production date.
• The rights to the human contributions: script, storyboard, edit and own images, per medium, duration and territory.
• The music licence: paid ads, TV if needed, and for how long.
• Consent from every recognisable person or voice, with scope, duration, withdrawal and compensation ^[10].
• Who is liable for infringements: a warranty and indemnity from the maker, because most tools don't indemnify you.
• Project files, prompts and source images: who gets them, and who decides on the AI label.

Ownership of images, texts and accounts is also a classic point of dispute with a new website; Bert lists those agreements in his checklist for a new SME website.

What does the AI Act regulate, and what not?

The AI Act places the copyright obligations on the makers of the models: a policy to comply with EU copyright law and a summary of the training data (Article 53) ^[25]. Lawsuits about that training are still ongoing, such as GEMA against OpenAI ^[26]. That's why the Raad voor Reclame recommends tools trained on licensed or explicitly permitted data ^[10].

For advertisers, it is mainly Article 50 that applies: since 2 August 2026, you label deepfakes visibly ^[25]. That label is separate from copyright and doesn't make an infringement legal, the Commission writes ^[27]. Which ads need a label is covered in Does your video ad need an AI label?

Curious how an ad with licensed music and a commercial voice looks on your own product? Send your statics for a free test ad: one video ad on your own brand, at no cost or obligation.

This article is not legal advice. The law on AI output is evolving fast, and several rulings are not yet final. Have your contracts and borderline cases reviewed by a lawyer.